I accept the debate. Since I am taking Pro position, let me set the rules guidelines for the debate.

Only guideline:

BOP is shared 50/50 between Pro and Con.

Con’s opening statement position:

I believe that aborting your child is a crime [Claim]

because it is the same thing as murdering your child when he is at an older age [reason]

Aborting a child is not a crime according to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade [claim supported by evidence].

The majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun said the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to the women and not an unborn embryo/fetus has not have legal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.[1] There has never been a single court decision that gives Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fetus.[2]

Therefore, it is not the “the same thing as murdering your child when he is at an older age.” [fact of US legal system]

Personal convictions or beliefs are not valid unless there are claims, reasons, and evidence. Here is a hypothetical example to illustrate why personal conviction is not valid:

The reason is quite simple: I could say, I believe that stepping on an ant is a crime [claim]

Because killing an ant a living being is the same as killing a human being [reason]

However, this argument does not make a compelling case, meaning the reasons are not adequate along with the fact that I have not provided evidence to make others think that what I am saying is true or supportable.

First off there is a actually a big difference from killing an ant compared to a fetus. Question- Is stepping on and killing a ant the same as murdering a human? Answer yes and no, yes because you are killing something, and no because killing a human can get you into some serious trouble (and it's just morally wrong).

So in fact, since a fetus turns into a human it is different and not the same as killing an ant.

You also backed up your argument with court cases on abortion (from 1978!) but i know that we can both agree that sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions aren't always the one that it right. Like Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Plessy vs. Ferguson. So the Supreme Court COULD BE WRONG, therefore it is useless to back up your statements with some of their cases.

Pro major opening arguments, reasons, and evidence for taking an affirmative position on abortion.

A woman has a legal right [in every state] to an abortion [see below].[1] So this is a map that indicates abortion policies around the world. As you see, the United State (including every single state in the Union) has under law legal abortion. This is from an official UN report.

[Pro question] “What evidence does Con have for claiming 31 states have banned abortion?” What states have a categorically ban on abortion? Where can I find documentation of laws on the book in these states will prove they have categorical bans on abortion? Because please provide the documentation with an accurate citation to that material. Given that it is public record, I should be able to retrieve the laws online and should be able to retrieve news articles from reputable sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. So, please provide that information.

The philosophical argument as well as logical arguments of the issue rest primarily on the notion of bodily integrity, including reproductive rights, and a right to terminate a pregnancy. So what do I mean by this. In Mandatory Motherhood, biologist Garrett Hardin wrote that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the choice dichotomy that says the choice for a woman is either abortion or no abortion fails to account for the reality of the situation. In reality, the women with unwanted pregnancies face a much more stark decision, either abortion or compulsory childbearing.[2] While abortion is never a desirable outcome, something treated lightly, if a woman decides to make a decision, a choice over her body, she determines is the best course then we need to ask ourselves whether an autonomous free agent have claim of her body or does the fetus claiming the body of the woman? Pro takes the side of women and the fundamental right to have control and choice over your body.

One of the most overused but still valid argument by analogy should lead voters to see the logic in supporting the abortion rights of women. This is referred to as the Violinist argument. It was developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion. Here is the basic situation:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."[3]

A person is not obligated to provide or share organs to maintain the viable of sick people, even if it would save their lives. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will.[4]

Con’s mistakes in interpretation of Pro’s initial comments (they were a hypothetical demonstration of bad arguments that derive from conjecture) not a comment on whether humans and ants have the same value. I used a ridiculous argument to demonstrate the ridiculousness that result from a particular variety of debate.

To be clear: the ant case was to demonstrate an invalid form of argument based on Con’s opening Round Statement. That is why explains why I underlined why a hypothetical personal claim is not a valid form of argument.

Let me brief demonstrate again using a different example—and to be clear this is a demonstration of how valid arguments work, not statement and not arguments related to abortion:

I believe that Con does not have a right to any belief [a hypothetical claim based on personal conviction]

Because I believe that all systems of belief that do not conform to my own are immoral and illegitimate [reason for claim]

God beamed a text message into my brain and told that this views were correct [evidence]

This illustrate how arguments of personal conviction or personal beliefs are just that and must include logic, evidence, or even rhetorical support.

[1] "World Abortion Policies 2013". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved 22 August 2014.

[2] Garrett James Hardin, Mandatory Motherhood: the true meaning of “right to life.” (Los Angles: The University of California Press, 1974).

Heretofore, Con has failed to provide evidence for a single claim, provide evidence or any form of support. Moreover, Con has failed to answer questioned posed by Pro in earlier rounds.

I will keep this round brief because BOP is 50, therefore only one side has advanced arguments, rebutted claims, and provided evidence.

But let me answer Con statement: “The female way have the decision to abort the baby, but then why would she even chose to have the baby in the FIRST place!”

The answer supports Pro. Okay, so “why would she chose to have the baby in the first place” implies that all women chose to have babies but then inexplicably abortion them. However, there are many circumstances where women are raped or coerced into incest are entered forcefully against their will. These women do not have a choice.

Apart from those examples, it is also true that almost 50% of all pregnancies are accidental, not planned.[1][2] That provides an answer to that question.

[Question for Con]: since you are opposing abortion, categorically please explain why raped women should be forced against their will to bear the child of a rapist.

[Question for Con]: In instances where the fetus endangers the life of the woman, what is the proper course of action? Do you give priority to a non-viable fetus or a living woman?

[1] National Health Statistics Report: “Intended and Unintended Births in the United States: 1982–2010

Okay, so Con wants to make one final point that is essential to the argument. The resolution debated was being in favor of abortion or being against abortion. While I have provided several arguments that are supported by evidence to make that claim, the most convincing piece comes from Pro’s closing remarks. Here is the relevant statement quoted from Pro:

“…women who are raped should have the choice for abortion, although that would not be right.”

Even though Con does not support abortion as a concept or as a value in itself, Con does support abortion in instances of rape and incest. Therefore, Con concede that Con supports abortion in these cases, although with the caveat “although that [abortion] would not be right.”

Reasons to Vote for Pro:

BOP for this debate is 50/50

Pro provided rebuttals to every single [warrant] or counterclaim made by Con.

Pro provided evidence or support for arguments made.

Pro asked Con several questions or warrants, every few of which Con provided answer and none that Con rebutted with evidence.

Reasons for voting decision: "So the Supreme Court COULD BE WRONG, therefore it is useless to back up your statements with some of their cases." - Is when Con lost all credibility. Their "arguments" went downhill from there, resulting in saying "aborting your child is a crime because the woman shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place." And then they go on to say God will help. So yeah. Pretty clear win for Pro.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.